Invoking God in Science Outside of Origins

[SryUrNotAgod]

Hi guys this is my first post ever

First let me give a basic introduction of where I am coming from so people don’t get the wrong idea. I am a fundamentalist Christian (sadly nowadays that’s so often misused to mean a terrorist) and I do hold to a literal 6 day creation.

I have gotten into many discussions with my pastor to be friend about invoking God when we research. Basically the question is, do we ONLY need to invoke God when we are talking about the origins or miracles? I know that He upholds the universe in a general sense and that if He didn't want to then something so given as mitosis or gravity would not function.

However my question is when can we invoke God in our studies in science? We usually research and study without invoking God or needing Him directly and actively, but of course give thanks to Him for allowing us to discover His genius in the way things work.

Is there ever a point where we go, its THIS step in which God works in? Is there an example of God having an active hand in existence, besides what He has set up with creation and how He generally holds up the universe?

I am in no way heading in a deist direction because God is very active in each of our lives in shaping and refining us to the image of Christ.

Lets keep this in a natural everyday direction and not delve into miracles because they are obviously ex nihilo and rare.

Thanks guys.

-In His Love
David

 

[FreezBee]

Hi guys this is my first post ever

Hi and welcome to the CF

And it's quite an interesting starting post

First let me give a basic introduction of where I am coming from so people don’t get the wrong idea. I am a fundamentalist Christian (sadly nowadays that’s so often misused to mean a terrorist) and I do hold to a literal 6 day creation.

I would assume that you can be a fundamentalist without being a terrorist - it might just take a bit more self-control, perhaps

I have gotten into many discussions with my pastor to be friend about invoking God when we research. Basically the question is, do we ONLY need to invoke God when we are talking about the origins or miracles? I know that He upholds the universe in a general sense and that if He didn't want to then something so given as mitosis or gravity would not function.

God is indeed the upholder of the universe, but not in way, so we should say "God did it" every time, we cannot find a natural explanation. God transcends nature, so a natural explanation is a divine explanation as well, I would venture to say.

However my question is when can we invoke God in our studies in science? We usually research and study without invoking God or needing Him directly and actively, but of course give thanks to Him for allowing us to discover His genius in the way things work.

Is there ever a point where we go, its THIS step in which God works in? Is there an example of God having an active hand in existence, besides what He has set up with creation and how He generally holds up the universe?

In antique Greek and Roman drama the plot was often such that only divine interaction could solve it. On stage was used a box with a mechanism in it that would produce noise and smoke, and a "god" would come out and solve the plot. This is called deus ex machina, God from the machine, but do we need such a device in science? And even if we attribute an action to God, how do we know that's it true and not just because we have given up finding a natural explanation?

I am in no way heading in a deist direction because God is very active in each of our lives in shaping and refining us to the image of Christ.

Lets keep this in a natural everyday direction and not delve into miracles because they are obviously ex nihilo and rare.

A good idea, because miracles are anyway outside of science. But as you can guess from what I have written above, I do not think we should invoke divine action in science, it's just a bad excuse for lazyness


- FreezBee

 

[Dannager]

I think, basically, my answer is going to be God stays out of science, period. If you want to start some method of investigation into the world around you that allows spiritual support you're going to need to coin a new word to describe it because science only works with on naturalistic explanations.

 

[Silent Bob]

I have gotten into many discussions with my pastor to be friend about invoking God when we research. Basically the question is, do we ONLY need to invoke God when we are talking about the origins or miracles?

Well coming from a very different background (liberal, non literal Genesis reading) I would say that I disagree with your evocation of God in origins completely, but let's not talk about that at this point. In regards of miracles we need to be very careful as to what we exclaim to be a miracle and what not. For instance I know how to make an icon appear to bleed, how to draw the face of Jesus on a toast, how to make a candle spontaneously combust etc.

Furthermore when we witness a phenomena be it natural or divine if we start evoking miracles without very solid reasons then we end up with a God of the gaps theology which is at best flimsy and reduces God to what we cannot at this point explain. Examples of God of the gaps is the explanation ancient people attributed to lightning (Zeus), earthquakes(Engelados), the sun(Ra), even fire(Brighid).

However my question is when can we invoke God in our studies in science?

The simple most honest answer would be: Never. I know many people do not like this but you must look into the definition of science and understand that science must adhere to methodological naturalism at all times. Methodological naturalism means that one must only invoke natural explanations to all observations when a natural explanation is not available one must then say: I do not know (yet).

Many people confuse methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism.

The difference between the two is that meth. nat. does not say that the supernatural does not exist but it says that we cannot invoke supernatural explanations when looking into natural phenomena, the supernatural is beyond the scope of what we are interested in and as long as something is not naturally observed we do not care about it.

This is a basic premise of science as used in the modern world and anything that does not follow this premise is by definition not science. It can be theology, philosophy or art but NEVER science. I know this is unfair to many people but hey we must have some sort of discipline set up unless you want Miss Cleo to start applying for research grants.

Ontological naturalism is a different concept of philosophy and it states that the natural is the only aspect of what exists. The supernatural does not exist and it is part of strong atheism.

So what is the difference between a Christian scientist and an Atheist scientist? When they are both in a lab, doing research, writing a paper for publication they both obey methodological naturalism. When out in a pub one may argue about the non-existence of the supernatural and the other may counter this by explaining what it feels like to accept the Spirit of God inside you. When back in the lab the Spirit of God and all miracle explanations are to be checked outside the door unless one wants to be fired from the institution he/she is working in. (Not true for Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute and others but I am not sure if they have labs, and hey even when one is studying in BJU (Bob Jones uni) for biology and presents a paper explaining the results of an experiment as a direct intervention from God I think EVEN BJU profs will throw the paper into the trash can.)

We usually research and study without invoking God or needing Him directly and actively, but of course give thanks to Him for allowing us to discover His genius in the way things work.

All true except for "usually" nowadays it is "always".

Is there ever a point where we go, its THIS step in which God works in?

If I understand this correctly this is like God of the gaps. This is how it goes:
We cannot explain how the sun formed so Goddidit.
Hubble telescope shows hydrogen atoms collapsing under their own gravity and giving birth to a new sun like star.
Oh rats, I guess God didn't do it in a poof of magic. Better find something else we cannot explain to hide God.

Is there an example of God having an active hand in existence, besides what He has set up with creation and how He generally holds up the universe?

An interesting question! I must answer that as far as naturally observed phenomena and my knowledge goes, no. If God did have an active hand in existence one that we can see with a microscope, telescope, eye then that hand is no longer supernatural, it is natural. One (me) can argue that all natural laws come from God. But I do this in the realm of philosophy and theology never in the realm of science as it does not belong in a research paper unless we can observe God directly and interact with him in a natural way e.g. phone or sight.

I am in no way heading in a deist direction because God is very active in each of our lives in shaping and refining us to the image of Christ.

As an ex-deist I still hold this position as far as nature is concerned. I do accept the spiritual world though and I think that God does interact with us through our spirit but He does not go around moving objects or making meteors strike Earth. I see God's creation as something perfect and perfect things never need tinkering in order to function correctly. Our spirit is not perfect and this is the way He wanted it to be for reasons would take billions of years to try and grasp.

P.S. Sorry for the long post and any spelling errors.

 

[The Lady Kate]

My brother sent me this... the OP reminded me of it...

 

[armothe]

God created science. God is science.

Christians need to stop playing this "God vs. Science" game because its a losing battle.

I'm not saying our understanding of scientific observation is perfect, but we certainly can't discredit it. We start looking like fools when we do.

God works through the miracles of science. They may appear as supernatural to us, but its definitely grounded in science. After all, He created the entire universe.

-A

 

[rmwilliamsll]

go to:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=12

look for the login names:
grmorton and george murphy.

GM is a very competent Lutheran theologian and he has good ideas built on Luther's hiddenness of God. i'd post the exact threads but i can't find them right now. i've been reading over there for years so too much area to cover.

i don't think either of their viewpoints are represented here. that is why the link to over there.

 

[vossler]

First of all welcome to Christian Forums and more specifically Origins Theology.

You've posted some questions that are dear to my heart so I'll go ahead and give you my thoughts.

However my question is when can we invoke God in our studies in science? We usually research and study without invoking God or needing Him directly and actively, but of course give thanks to Him for allowing us to discover His genius in the way things work.

I believe God should be a part of everything we do and that all of what we do should be for His glory. God should be involved with and directing my every step and showing me His way. However, there are many here who would believe that God and science should not mix. They will say something to the effect of "You can't do good science and involve God."

[Is there ever a point where we go, its THIS step in which God works in? Is there an example of God having an active hand in existence, besides what He has set up with creation and how He generally holds up the universe?

God may not manifest Himself in everything we do, but believe me He's aware of and involved in it to some degree. As for evidence of His involvement, well it's usually nothing that we can objectively measure, but His fingerprints are so many situations that it would be hard to deny His involvement.

 

[Dondi]

I have been reading a book called "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroeder. Schroeder holds a Ph.D from MIT, attaining degrees in chemical engineering and earth and planetary sciences. He has a background in physics and biology. He gets into quantum phsyics thing, but he's a bit more down to earth than the "What the Bleep...?" folks. He explains things is simple to understand terms. He actually has good insights on the aspects of Creation and has actually revitalized my faith in God in regards to Creation. He shows how there has to be a wisdom behind the formation of the universe, in the quantum physics behind it at the atomic level, in the molecular biology in which living systems are created, and in how the different organs of the body and mind function.

He also authored a book called "The Science of God", which I've yet to read, but that is my next project.

Now admittedly, Schroeder is admittedly an old earth advocate, however he goes into some general physics that don't necessarily only have to do with creation.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/

 

[SryUrNotAgod]

But as you can guess from what I have written above, I do not think we should invoke divine action in science, it's just a bad excuse for lazyness

Exactly what my is worry whenever I have this discussion. I know that we are prone to jump at any tantalizing pure evidence of God and that many times in the past we have stopped short when we don't have an explanation and then invoke God. That is why I always am careful when I do research that I keep such things in the back of my mind.

I think, basically, my answer is going to be God stays out of science, period. If you want to start some method of investigation into the world around you that allows spiritual support you're going to need to coin a new word to describe it because science only works with on naturalistic explanations.

But see that’s where the problem with modern science lies. Science in its fundamental definition is the pursuit of true knowledge explaining the world around us. It is supposed to be objective. It isn't supposed to have an overriding philosophy that subjectively filters out data or twists it one way or the other.

It frustrates me to no end when i see people conducting "science" by starting with the premise 'ok there’s NO such thing as God' so now that we establish that, then any evidence that might point in that direction must be removed or explained away, even if the explanation is ridiculous and very improbable. Science is supposed to be about letting the evidence speak for itself, instead of coercing the evidence to scratch your back.

Christians need to stop playing this "God vs. Science" game because its a losing battle.

Is there an example of God having an active hand in existence, besides what He has set up with creation and how He generally holds up the universe?

An interesting question! I must answer that as far as naturally observed phenomena and my knowledge goes, no.

No of course we shouldn't split Christianity vs Science because the Bible is the truth and science is the field of seeking truth (or at least its supposed to be :[ )

But if science is the search for the explanation of why things are the way they are then don’t we HAVE TO include God if He really does exist. I mean if He is so undeniably essential to why everything is the way it is, wouldn't we need to include Him if we are to do real science (and then the question is ok then where do we include, which is the purpose of my first post).

Also the Bible tells us that God takes care of the animals and feeds them and He also blesses non-believers and those who hate Him by giving them rain and crops and other such general blessings (common grace)? In order for Him to do that then He MUST be active in causing rain conditions to form where He wants it to rain:

17Yet He has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.
Acts 14:17

I don't want this to turn into an if God exists or is the bible infallible/inerrant debate.


-In Christ
David

 

[Dannager]

But see that’s where the problem with modern science lies. Science in its fundamental definition is the pursuit of true knowledge explaining the world around us.

No, that isn't science in its fundamental definition (perhaps in its fundamentalist definition). Science, fundamentally, is based on three things - empiricism, experimentation and methodological naturalism. Science does not, cannot and never will investigate anything other than natural phenomena and seek natural explanations for these. If you are unclear on what the definition of science is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science is a good place to start.

It is supposed to be objective.

And it is, within the scope of what it can study.

It isn't supposed to have an overriding philosophy that subjectively filters out data or twists it one way or the other.

Nothing is twisted or filtered. Science only works with naturalistic explanations. Science isn't saying that the supernatural doesn't happen - only that it has no idea if it does or not. By the way, data will never be filtered out. If it can be observed and recorded it is by definition natural.

It frustrates me to no end when i see people conducting "science" by starting with the premise 'ok there’s NO such thing as God'

It should frustrate you. Fortunately, no one does that. Science starts with the premise "Ok, there may or may not be a God but I can't know that."

so now that we establish that, then any evidence that might point in that direction must be removed or explained away, even if the explanation is ridiculous and very improbable.

So far we haven't had any ridiculous or very improbable explanations for natural phenomena. They've all been pretty solid and concise.

Science is supposed to be about letting the evidence speak for itself, instead of coercing the evidence to scratch your back.

And that's what it does.

 

[shernren]

Here's my view on it:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=21969093&postcount=22

 

[Silent Bob]

No of course we shouldn't split Christianity vs Science because the Bible is the truth and science is the field of seeking truth (or at least its supposed to be :[ )

The way I see things is that the Bible (which is NOT equal to God btw) is about our spirit. Science is about nature. Science is not seeking truth it is looking for explainations that work. We assume that they are true because they work in a pragmatic way but they may or may not be true if you want to go deeply into philosophy.
E.g. for all purposes of science one can use newtonian physics to describe the movement of a yo-yo, newtonian physics are not valid anymore but when dealing with slow speeds they offer good enough results which is in the end what we really are interested in.

But if science is the search for the explanation of why things are the way they are then don’t we HAVE TO include God if He really does exist.

Science explains why natural things are the way they are, if God is natural e.g a stone then science includes Him. If God is a supernatural entity that cannot be seen, heard or felt objectively (no, personal relationships with God do not count) then science has nothing to comment on. Science simply doesn't care for things that are not capable of being observed in an objectively verifiable way (this includes God(s), goblins, elves, invisible pink unicorns etc).

I mean if He is so undeniably essential to why everything is the way it is, wouldn't we need to include Him if we are to do real science (and then the question is ok then where do we include, which is the purpose of my first post).

But He is not undeniably essential hence the existance of skeptics. There is no mathematical proof or objective piece of evidence that points towards His existance or not. One must come to God through faith and not undeniable logic. God may make sense to you and be undeniably essential to everything you stand for but you cannot dismiss the fact that objectively you cannot prove or disprove anything that has to do with God or any other supernatural agents for that matter. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not evidence you either have faith or you do not. Science has absolutely 0 faith. If something works in science and can be repeated and explained then it is real if it doesn't then science doesn't care about it.

Also the Bible tells us that God takes care of the animals and feeds them and He also blesses non-believers and those who hate Him by giving them rain and crops and other such general blessings (common grace)? In order for Him to do that then He MUST be active in causing rain conditions to form where He wants it to rain:

17Yet He has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.
Acts 14:17

I cannot answer the above due to your request bellow. All that I want to say is, again, that the Bible =/= God.

I don't want this to turn into an if God exists or is the bible infallible/inerrant debate.

 

[shernren]

I finally put my finger on what's bothering me. For all those people who demand that science include God: How can science exclude God? Science says nothing about God. We can't invent a "God-isolation-box" into which we can put an experiment and then say "Alright, we know God had nothing to do with this, and under God-less conditions such-and-such happens".

Science doesn't include God, science doesn't exclude God. Scientists exclude God, by saying that God doesn't exist, or can't be known, or has withdrawn from the universe; that's the only way to exclude God from the universe which by definition He created if He exists. Scientists "include" God from the moment they assume that He exists and is still present in the world today, by definiton. Methodological naturalism doesn't change that one bit.

 

[vossler]

Science doesn't include God, science doesn't exclude God.

Exactly right!!!

Scientists exclude God, by saying that God doesn't exist, or can't be known, or has withdrawn from the universe; that's the only way to exclude God from the universe which by definition He created if He exists. Scientists "include" God from the moment they assume that He exists and is still present in the world today, by definiton. Methodological naturalism doesn't change that one bit.

Again you're right! I liked telling you were right in the same post twice.

Scientists exclude God because they don't believe He exists, at least a majority of them do.

 

[Mallon]

Scientists exclude God because they don't believe He exists, at least a majority of them do.

We are all in agreement, then. Two points, however:
1) Not all scientists are atheists (just solidifying this point, as vossler has already made above).
and
2) The validity of a scientist's research/conclusions is not affected by his/her religious beliefs.

 

[Willtor]

Scientists exclude God because they don't believe He exists, at least a majority of them do.

This has not been my experience. Most scientists I've talked to think God or gods exist. But that's anecdotal. Where do you get your figures?

 

[vossler]

This has not been my experience. Most scientists I've talked to think God or gods exist. But that's anecdotal. Where do you get your figures?

That's according to a Gallup Poll

 

[Willtor]

That's according to a Gallup Poll

It doesn't say that at all. It says that a little more than half of all scientists don't think God had anything to do with the evolutionary process. I have Christian friends who think this. I don't think their origins views are very well theologically informed, but I don't doubt the sincerity of their faith in Christ.

 

[shernren]

Scientists exclude God because they don't believe He exists, at least a majority of them do.

And of course, scientists include God if they believe that He exists and is relevant to the world today ... even when they believe in evolution.